X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:18:26 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5012143 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:11:54 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.125; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=PfPQ8rIoTcZsncbPZjVSZ7K0hy8Zc4hmL68r4VPNpKE= c=1 sm=0 a=Jhy8mP4OLzYA:10 a=ttCsPuSJ-FAA:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=CjxXgO3LAAAA:8 a=gkY61f8D8m9BqMbDt9UA:9 a=XLojeEFeKwLwTHD121cA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=rC2wZJ5BpNYA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=KmT51iNVCz3kA75Nr4AA:9 a=IxOwn22ADFNY5LiX3QoA:7 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1488] helo=Lobo) by hrndva-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 54/3C-01023-79F3EED4; Tue, 07 Jun 2011 15:11:19 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <007d01cc2525$2682dd70$6401a8c0@Lobo> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: References: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine X-Original-Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:11:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007A_01CC2503.9F48A6D0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01CC2503.9F48A6D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable And for all liquid cooled engines, the Meredith effect can be used to = reduce cooling drag considerably as shown in the P-51. Wolfgang ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Steitle=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine Hi Gary,=20 Since I have actually completed a successful rotary installation, I = would like to comment on the rotary engine option. =20 First, addressing the negatives,=20 1) Apex seals - The apex seal issue has been solved long ago and is = no longer an issue, unless the engine is over-boosted and allowed to = detonate; if this is a concern, do what the boosted guys do and go with = the oversized 3mm apex seals. Even if the apex seal issue was still an = issue, losing an apex seal is equivalent to burning an exhaust valve. = The engine will still run, just be down on power.=20 2) Insurance - Obtaining full-coverage insurance has not been an = issue for my ES,=20 3) Complex Systems - Not sure what you're referring with complex = systems (running EFI which also handles ignition); Yes, I'm running 6 = coils, but that provides redundancy, also running dual = alternators/batteries (Z-14 design) same as many others. =20 4) weight is virtually the same as IO-540 (to the best of my = recollection, my ES weighed in at 2080#), 5) Cooling drag - I will concede this one, but this can be minimized = with careful cooling design and the use of cowl flaps. The P-51, and = others, were liquid cooled. As I recall, the Voyager was liquid cooled = and it made it around the globe non-stop. =20 5) Rotary engine's exhaust is loud - Agree, but this can be handled = with a turbo, a good muffler, sound insulation, and/or an ANR headset. As for the rotary's positives: 1) The rotary is the epitome of the KISS principle. The 20B = (3-rotor) rotary engine has only 4 moving parts (3 cast iron rotors and = an eccentric shaft). There's no camshaft, cam gears, rocker arms, = intake or exhaust valves, pushrods, lifters, valve springs, keepers, = connecting rods, caps, or bolts, piston pins, etc. - If it isn't there, = it can't break.=20 2) 350hp (n/a p-port 3-rotor) 3) While parts are not exactly cheap (by automotive standards), they = are much cheaper than certified a/c parts. The typical overhaul cost = for a rotary engine is less than the cost of one jug for a certified = engine. 4) Millions of rotary cars have been built; the rotary engine is well = proven technology. 5) Cruise Fuel burn is for my p-ported 3-rotor is14.5-15 gph, 23 gph = in climb mode. However, the rotary can burn mo-gas. 6) No concern with shock cooling. Just pull the throttle and descend, = no worry. 7) No hot-start issues. =20 8) Comes stock with 2 plugs/rotor, providing redundancy=20 The stock rotary engine redlines at 9000 rpm. I typically cruise at = 5200 rpm. Since the rotors turn at 1/3 crank speed, the rotors are only = turning 1733 rpm in cruise. If/when I want to go faster, I run it at = 5900 rpm, the point on the rpm curve where there is the least amount of = bearing load. Even at 5900 rpm, the rotors are turning less than 2000 = rpm.=20 I'll be the first to admit that the rotary route is not for everybody, = and I'm not trying to convince anyone to go down this path. Personally, = I'm extremely pleased with my choice of engines and plan on flying it = for many years to come. All I ask is that it is given a fair = evaluation. =20 Mark S. Austin, TX On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gary Casey = wrote: Lot's of interesting comments on the subject of alternate engines. = I was convinced I was going to use an automotive V-8 at one time, but = the last straws were the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting = insurance and the low (or impossibility) of resae value. As someone = said, the resale value would likely be the same as an aircraft without = an engine. And my analysis showed that the installed cost would be = about the same (or more) then for an aircraft engine. But the internals = of any of these engines are robust and should able to tolerate high = continuous power. My conclusions - opinions of the disadvantages: V-8 with reduction gear: Heavy - about 150 pound penalty Complex installation and systems Slight fuel consumption penalty V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged: Heavy - about 75 pound penalty Complex installation and systems Rotary engine: Very complex installation and systems Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty Potentially fragile apex seals Hgh cooling drag Noisy Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight penalty Turbine engine: High initial cost High fuel consumption negates any weight savings Misc. opinions: The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about 1918 when = Chevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is even = older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" that someone = mentioned. Gary Casey ------=_NextPart_000_007A_01CC2503.9F48A6D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
And for all liquid cooled engines, the = Meredith=20 effect can be used to reduce cooling drag considerably as shown in the=20 P-51.
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark = Steitle=20
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 = 12:50=20 PM
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV = Choice of=20 Engine

Hi Gary, 

Since I have actually completed a successful rotary installation, = I would=20 like to comment on the rotary engine option.  

First, addressing the negatives, 

1)  Apex seals - The apex seal issue has been solved long = ago and is=20 no longer an issue, unless the engine is over-boosted and allowed to = detonate;=20 if this is a concern, do what the boosted guys do and go with=20 the oversized 3mm apex seals.  Even if the apex seal issue = was still=20 an issue, losing an apex seal is equivalent to burning an exhaust = valve.=20  The engine will still run, just be down on power. 

2) Insurance -  Obtaining full-coverage insurance has not = been an=20 issue for my ES, 

3) Complex Systems - Not sure what you're referring with complex = systems=20 (running EFI which also handles ignition);  Yes, I'm running 6 = coils, but=20 that provides redundancy, also running dual alternators/batteries = (Z-14=20 design) same as many others.  

 4)  weight is virtually the same as IO-540 (to the = best of my=20 recollection, my ES weighed in at  2080#),
 
5) Cooling drag - I will concede this one, but this can be = minimized with=20 careful cooling design and the use of cowl flaps.  The P-51, and = others,=20 were liquid cooled.  As I recall, the Voyager was liquid cooled = and it=20 made it around the globe non-stop.    

5) Rotary engine's exhaust is loud - Agree, but this can be = handled with=20 a turbo, a good muffler, sound insulation, and/or an ANR = headset.


As for the rotary's positives:

1)  The rotary is the epitome of the KISS principle. =  The 20B=20 (3-rotor) rotary engine has only 4 moving parts (3 cast iron rotors = and an=20 eccentric shaft).  There's no camshaft, cam gears, rocker arms, = intake or=20 exhaust valves, pushrods, lifters, valve springs, keepers, connecting = rods,=20 caps, or bolts, piston pins, etc.  - If it isn't there, it can't=20 break. 

2) 350hp (n/a p-port 3-rotor)

3) While parts are not exactly cheap (by automotive standards), = they are=20 much cheaper than certified a/c parts.  The typical overhaul cost = for a=20 rotary engine is less than the cost of one jug for a certified = engine.

4) Millions of rotary cars have been built; the rotary engine is = well=20 proven technology.

5) Cruise Fuel burn is for my p-ported 3-rotor is14.5-15 gph, 23 = gph in=20 climb mode.  However, the rotary can burn mo-gas.

6) No concern with shock cooling.  Just pull the throttle = and=20 descend, no worry.

7) No hot-start issues.  

8) Comes stock with 2 plugs/rotor, providing = redundancy 

The stock rotary engine redlines at 9000 rpm.  I typically = cruise at=20 5200 rpm.  Since the rotors turn at 1/3 crank speed, the rotors = are only=20 turning 1733 rpm in cruise.  If/when I want to go faster, I run = it at=20 5900 rpm, the point on the rpm curve where there is the least amount = of=20 bearing load.  Even at 5900 rpm, the rotors are turning less than = 2000=20 rpm. 

I'll be the first to admit that the rotary route is not for = everybody,=20 and I'm not trying to convince anyone to go down this path. =  Personally,=20 I'm extremely pleased with my choice of engines and plan on flying it = for many=20 years to come.  All I ask is that it is given a fair evaluation. =  =20  

Mark S.
Austin, TX


On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Gary Casey = <casey.gary@yahoo.com> = wrote:

Lot's of interesting comments on the subject of alternate = engines. =20 I was convinced I was going to use an automotive V-8 at one time, = but the=20 last straws were the difficulty (or impossibility) of getting = insurance and=20 the low (or impossibility) of resae value.  As someone said, = the resale=20 value would likely be the same as an aircraft without an = engine.  And=20 my analysis showed that the installed cost would be about the same = (or=20 more) then for an aircraft engine.  But the internals of = any of=20 these engines are robust and should able to tolerate high = continuous=20 power.  My conclusions - opinions of the disadvantages:

 

V-8 with reduction gear:

Heavy - about 150 pound penalty

Complex installation and systems

Slight fuel consumption penalty

 

V-8 engine direct drive turbocharged:

Heavy - about 75 pound penalty

Complex installation and systems

 

Rotary engine:

Very complex installation and systems

Heavy - up to 50 pound penalty

Potentially fragile apex seals

Hgh cooling drag

Noisy

Significant fuel consumption penalty increases the weight = penalty

 

Turbine engine:

High initial cost

High fuel consumption negates any weight savings

 

Misc. opinions:  The liquid-cooled V-8 dates back to about = 1918 when=20 Chevrolet built the first mass-produced one, so it's technology is=20 even older than the air-cooled engine's "30's technology" that = someone=20 mentioned.

 

Gary=20 Casey


------=_NextPart_000_007A_01CC2503.9F48A6D0--